The Libertarian Party is the only party that respects the LGBTQ community. Don't be co-opted by the Democrats!

1:19 pm September 24, 2010

Mona wrote:

The Libertarian Party should direct their anger towards the Republicans who voted as a block against allowing even debate and then a vote on the issue of Don't Ask Don't Tell. The President is supportive. I have seen him speak out for repeal in interviews and in speeches. I think Kyle is just more interested in supporting the Republican/tea bag party that lives in the past. They speak about liberty but act with intolerance of others.

Gee, who made the first substantive step towards working against DADT....could it be the Log Cabin Republicans who won a court case against the law perchance?

1:31 pm September 24, 2010

Rahul wrote:

The easiest stereotype we can make about someone and get away with, while at the same time causing detrimental harm, happens to be homosexuality.

The Democrats have made it into a fine art , the ability to convince a minority that they are the only choice. In reality, the democrats have set back everything from race relations to progress on women's rights and sexual orientation. Exhibit A for Harry Reid on DADT.

Right below is an excellent reason why the democrats are responsible as much as the Republicans. A libertarian posts on a very rare article about the LP, and is immediately called a "Tea Bag"-er by someone who wants to whitewash the democrat's role. In the era of such hyperpartisanship where Democrat (or Republican) anonymonas on internet boards cannot take a sip of their mimosa without abusing someone, where will the progress come from if not from someone outside ?

1:32 pm September 24, 2010

terje wrote:

The Libertarians?

You mean the same Libertarian party that...:

1 - opposes any anti-discrimination laws that would prevent LGBT people from being fired from jobs, denied housing, refused service in public establishments, etc?

The Libertarian Party wants to blame Democrats for the defeat of DADT repeal? Look at the Senate vote -- 57 of 59 Democrats voted to repeal the policy, while all 40 Republicans who where present voted to filibuster the entire Defense Authorization bill because it included this provision. There is one party that stood in the way of ending DADT -- the Republicans. So called moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Scott Brown, Richard Lugar, Greg LeMieux, Judd Gregg, and George Voinivich lined up with the culture warriors of their party to stop progress being made. Disgusting.

Any gay person who votes for the Libertarians because they blame the Democrats for failing to end DADT is simply empowering the real obstacle - the Republicans who let bigotry led them to vote against funding our men and women in uniform.

1:34 pm September 24, 2010

Kyle wrote:

Mona,

I can assure you that I'm not involved with the Tea Party or the Republican Party. The LP supports social tolerance. Read the LP platform (http://www.lp.org/platform)

1:42 pm September 24, 2010

Jason wrote:

Until there is competition for LGBT votes they shouldn't expect any action on their "issues." It's too bad so many of them are like blind sheep who vote, without question, for Democrats who, as the past two years have shown, have no intention of addressing the issues important to this community.

1:51 pm September 24, 2010

Pie wrote:

Good for the Libertarian party! A big reason why many gay people vote for democrats is because, even if they don't pass important laws for the gay community, at least they won't be trying to strip away their rights further. I'm glad to see another party openly seeking gay votes, it's too bad the Republican party will never get out of bed with extremist Christians long enough to do the same.

1:56 pm September 24, 2010

lambduh! wrote:

Libertarians?

The best known "libertarians" are RonPaul and his son. They are really republicans.

Ok, surprise us, name for us any other libertarian senator or congressman please.

We are waiting..........................

5:43 pm September 24, 2010

bman wrote:

Marriage equality is based on biology not "orientation." Although same sex partners view themselves as homosexual by orientation, biologically they are two unmarried men or two unmarried women who have the potential to procreate with a member of the opposite sex. When it comes to marriage benefits, they are no better than every other unmarried man or woman, who had to marry a member of the opposite sex to obtain marriage benefits. Equality means the same marriage rules, based on opposite sex biology, apply to all.

7:51 pm September 24, 2010

IVF ex baby wrote:

You can marry and then adopt, get surrogates, donors, IVF. etc.

And yes .....cloning!

Procreation technology has changed the limits of biology.

12:10 pm September 25, 2010

Ben wrote:

bman, how about I lie to a woman and tell her that I am sexualy attracted to her so that I can have a family. Is that what you want? Do you want gay men to devistate your daughters and sisters when they tell them 10 years later that they are gay but did what they had to do to have a family? Thats what people with your mentality are suggesting. Or a better idea would be to treat gay couple the same as straight couples. Let us be with who we love and have all of the same rights. This is not about procreation because there are unwanted babies from straight people that need a home and we could and would help with that.

12:37 am September 27, 2010

Alan Murdock wrote:

I am convinced it is time for Gay Democrats to join the Libertarian Party. All the effort wer put into Obama's campaign got us nothing in return. I am very disapointed in Obama and the Democrats. I will not vote for Obama again.He has nothing interesting to say or do, and has done nothin for the Gays. In past years we have sent lots of money to help the Democrats, but this year I have replied to their requests for money by saying Call me after you get rid of DADT and DOMA. Now I will join the Libertarian Party..

7:02 pm September 27, 2010

joe4liberty wrote:

To Lamduh? I have a better question for you, name a Republican president before Lincoln. Every movement starts with the first one. If enough people wake up and vote for what they actually want, instead of who they think will win anyway, we might change this country. As long as you vote for what you don’t wan, that is exactly what you will continue to get.
To the rest of you, we spend far too much time stuffing the hay up the wrong end of the horse in this country. The argument should not be about marriage “rights” for gays, but rather getting the government out of personal relationships. A marriage is a personal contract – period. No other contract requires the participants to get permission from the government to enter into the contract. So question for you all; where in the Constitution does it say that the government can make you ask permission to get married? But “it is what it is”, and so, until we can see the return of small Constitutional government, vote for the only candidates that believe in true equality under the law – that’s Libertarian.
PS, bman: that’s just silly. Your argument falls apart at the simplest example: If my wife and I adopt instead of procreating, does our marriage become null and void?

7:19 pm September 27, 2010

joe4liberty wrote:

BTW terje; You say that the LP oppose government intervention as if it is a bad thing. Yes, a business owner should be able to fire someone for whatever reason that he wishes to, it is after all, his job, and his money. I have been fired for equally poor reasons, but in the end, no one should be REQUIRED to hire, or keep ANYONE on the payroll that they do not want. Just as no one should ever be required to work at a job it they do not want to work for that company. Anything less is slavery. Freedom is a two-way street, and liberty is the only thing that you cannot have unless you are first willing to give it to others. You cannot make a bigot less so by requiring him to pay you. Nothing stops the LGBT community from boycotting bigots however, and in fact history has shown that this is the ONLY effective means of ending bigotry.
It is also true that the LP understands that a mother grieving for the loss of her son is not grieving less because her son is straight. Murder is murder. Equality under the law requires treating all people as equals, and that means removing biased laws. A man beaten and tortured is no less or more dead depending on his sexual orientation. Hate crime legislation set the LGBT community back a hundred years in terms of equality, just as Affirmative Apartheid - - er - - “Affirmative Action” set the black community back equally.
Lastly, you are very much correct in your statement that the Libertarian Party opposes government intervention in science and medicine. America once had the greatest healthcare in the world, then the government got involved. You want to see an end to HIV? Get the government red tape out of the way, and let scientists do what they do best. Believe me, pharmaceutical companies will not turn down the billions of dollars that will be made with such a discovery, what is slowing the discovery is the government intervention. We don't need government aid, we need big brother to step out of the way!
Only when we stop asking for – and accepting - special favors, can we be a nation of free and equal men.

6:59 pm October 1, 2010

bman wrote:

ben, All LGBT people have completely equal rights with the rest of us if they choose to meet the same conditions the rest of us have to meet.

Marriage laws are not based on "orientation" but on biology, i.e., whether one is male or female. If government refuses to recognize "orientation" that is not a violation of equal rights because marriage has never been based on orientation for anyone.

Marriage law views same sex partners simply as men and women who can marry an opposite sex partner or choose to be single, just like every other man and woman who makes that choice.

Equality means you get the same rules applied to you on the same basis they are applied to everyone else. That basis is not orientation but biology.

Orientation should not be a basis for rights because, unlike race which is both a static state and objective state, orientation is a subjective state that has a range of meaning for different people.

Additionally, orientation is unlike race because race has nothing to do with rights to a special behavior that is different from the behavior of the rest of society.

If rights were given based on race/orientation to a behavior different from the rest of society, that would be discrimination.

The case you imagine is moot because plenty of men and women have families without getting married. Their relationship is not formally recognized and it does not have access to marriage benefits, but its still a family.

On procreation, natural marriage is based on an ethic that protects society from unwed childbirths on an economy of scale that simply cannot be replaced by adoption.

A same sex marriage law would neutralize or eliminate the ethic behind natural marriage because same sex marriage is based on an opposite ethic.

Same sex marriage denies that people should marry to have sex, to have children, or to parent children. It sees marriage as two [and eventually more ] persons entering a contract for reasons of their own regardless of being male or female.

By contrast, natural marriage is between one man and one woman and its much more than a contract. Its a matter of moral, social, and spiritual responsibility for having sex, having children, and parenting children.

A same sex marriage law does not simply permit the old marriage ethic to continue along side the new. Once the older generation passes with the new generation in place and indoctrinated by the new law, marriage would no longer be viewed as a matter of moral, social, or spiritual responsibility but as a matter of individual preference.

The "ethic" behind natural marriage protects the nation from a spiral increase in unwed childbirths that would otherwise become a source of crime, poverty, disease, welfare, and such things.

One that ethic is lost, the protections would be lost also on an economy of scale that adoption could not match. And no law could replace or restore the lost ethic once it was no longer entrenched in the hearts and minds of the citizens.

On benefits: Its fair to give benefits only to natural marriage because benefits encourage a practice which protects society from unwed childbirths. Its like a company that gives coupons to buy its product. If you don't buy the product, you can't use the coupon. If a couple does not wish to advance the interest of society through natural marriage, it should not qualify for the same benefits. There is no discrimination in that.

Besides, if government gave unmarried couples or same sex couples the same benefits as married couples, it would be working against its own purpose to promote the natural marriage ethic. That's like Coke allowing you to redeem its coupon even if you buy Pepsi.

And whenever government works against its own purposes, it needs to be fixed.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.